Nearly two-thirds of campaigns want clipping, not UGC. Across the 653 typed live campaigns we track, 65% ask you to edit existing footage into clips, at the $1.00 median. About one in five (20%) want UGC, original video you produce yourself, and that smaller slice pays more, a $1.50 median. So the market mostly wants clip editors, and the rarer, higher-paying work is original content. Here is the split, and why the premium is not free money.
What the market wants
| Content type | Share of campaigns | Median CPM |
|---|---|---|
| Clipping (edit existing clips) | 65% | $1.00 |
| UGC (create the original) | 20% | $1.50 |
| Other / music / logo | 15% | $1.00 |
Clipping is the job. Two-thirds of campaigns hand you material, a stream, a podcast, a VOD, and ask for clips cut from it. If that is what you do, the volume is enormous and it pays the $1 baseline. UGC, where you film and produce the video yourself, is a fifth of the market. The rest is a mix of smaller categories.
UGC pays more because it is more work
The $1.50 UGC median is 50% above clipping's $1.00, but that gap is not a better deal, it is a bigger job. Clipping edits material that already exists. UGC means the idea, the shoot and the edit are all yours, and often your own face on camera. So the premium is compensation for the extra production, not a rate you can pick up for the same effort. We measured the pay gap on its own in clipping vs UGC, which pays more, and the demand side here explains part of it: UGC is scarcer because it asks more of you.
Where music editing fits
One smaller category is worth calling out, because it is a craft of its own: music editing, cutting to and around songs to push an artist or a release. It shows up as a distinct content type on about 6% of typed campaigns, so as a content mode it is a third option alongside clipping and UGC, not just a subject. And as a subject it is much bigger than that 6%: music is 18% of campaigns by niche, and it clusters on music-focused platforms, so a music editor finds far more of it than the content-type tag alone suggests. When we reviewed Clipster, 56% of its campaigns were music. It is the same point we made about the niches: music is its own thing.
Pick your mode: clips for volume, UGC for the premium
So the split is clear. If you edit clips, the market is built for you, two-thirds of the work at a dollar. If you produce original video, there is less of it but it pays half again more, for half again the effort. And if you edit music, you have a category of your own that is bigger than it looks. Pick the mode that matches what you can actually make, then filter the directory by content type to see the volume and the pay side by side.
FAQ
Do brands want clips or original content?
Mostly clips. About 65% of campaigns want clipping (editing existing footage), against 20% for UGC (original video you produce). The market is built for clip editors.
Does UGC pay more than clipping?
Yes, a $1.50 median against clipping's $1.00, about 50% more. But UGC is more work, since you create the video from scratch, so the premium is compensation for effort, not a free upgrade.
What is UGC in clipping?
UGC (user-generated content) means you film and produce an original video for the brand, rather than cutting clips from footage that already exists. It is about a fifth of campaigns and pays a little more.
Should a beginner do clipping or UGC?
Clipping, usually. It is two-thirds of the market, has the lowest barrier (no filming or appearing on camera), and pays the $1 baseline. Move to UGC once you are comfortable producing original video, for the higher rate.